->> I know that building plans are often reused in other parts of the world, but if you look at the building that's the apparent source of the plume on the left (as well as the next two buildings to its right) it appears that it's been rubber stamped at least two other times up and to the right.

Jenna, Yes, non-photographers have notices it. To make matters worse, Mr. Hajj was one of the photographers that covered the Qana apartment complex bombing where some people (incorrectly, I believe) questioned the truthfullness of the images. This photo is going to _really_ pour gas on the that whole issue.

->> The IDF has reduced many parts of Lebanon to smoldering piles or rubble. And then they bomb those piles again. I am having trouble understanding why a photographer would ruin their career over a photo that isn't very good in the first place, especially considering there is no shortage of buildings being consumed by fire and smoke in Lebanon. Can this be a bad video still? Or perhaps a long lens with a doubler attached. This image would certainly catch the attention of any Reuters photo editor, if it were - as many of you are suggesting - a clone stamp fakery, would it not?

I am sure someone can shoot an email to the Reuters Beirut Bureau Photo Editor, to alert them and get an answer, if the building is even still there. It is our job as journalists to bring these things up. Its a sad day if the accusations are indeed true. I've seen some truly moving images from this conflict. Ones that evoke anger and a deep sense of sadness. I can't imagine why, with all the horror, violence and destruction happening in Lebanon, a photojournalist would feel the need to spend the time doctoring a bad photograph when it is very evident that there are truly moving images that convey the absurdity of this war being taken everyday.

Every morning, I pick up a copy of the LA Times, and see the outstanding work of their photographers are doing on both sides of the border. It obvious to me that there are moving pictures to be made there, if photographers would spend less time doctoring bad pictures in photo shop, and more time walking the streets of the cities of Lebanon.

->> AGAIN!...you gotta be kidding me! This guy has pushed the limits too far before. If you look at his previous work and captions he is obviously biased against Israel...wait a minute, isn't that unethical?

->> "Can this be a bad video still? Or perhaps a long lens with a doubler attached."

I'm no expert, but I've racked my brain to try and think of a way that this image could have resulted without manipulation, but I'm not getting very far. My first thought was perhaps it was shot through a window screen and the funky patterns in the smoke were the result of some sort of defraction. I saw some odd defractions once when I shot lightning through a window screen at a house once. But the patterns aren't consistent enough in the smoke across the image and I doubt that defraction would result in cloned buildings.

->> If you're going to blame anyone, blame the photo editors at Reuters for not catching an obvious FUBARed pic. For all we know this is an (advanced?) amateur who submitted the photo and who also lives in a part of the world where there are bigger worries in the world than photojournalism ethics. You know, like, hey is that bomb about to land in my lap?

->> Wes,
This guy is "labeled" as a professional photographer; look at his previous work. Even if he was an amateur and lives there he had no reason to manipulate that photo in such an extreme way. I do agree with you on blaming the REUTERS photo editors ALSO.

->> Everyone is culpable if this photo wasn't vetted in camera to print process. Ultimately though, it rests on the photographer. Editors, while casting a suspicious eye, should not have to examine photos for forgeries and fakes for every image that comes into the system.

While the words in a caption, like language, has power and can be manipulated, or interpreted by our experiences in diffferent ways and defined through our own cultural lens, there is no excuse for manipulating photos like this. If this is the case, then he shouldn't work again.

Caption reads: Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack.

I highly recommend the described photograph taken by photographer Adnan Hajj, employed by REUTERS be reviewed and REMOVED from Yahoo.com and affiliated websites for unethical and unmoral qualities. The photograph displays obvious signs of over-editing photo manipulation by software program(s). The manipulated image is highly offensive; especially to photojournalists. Yahoo! Inc. should be ashamed for allowing this kind of disgraceful material. Although Yahoo! Inc. does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content or advertisements contained on or accessed from any of the services contained on this website it is the responsibility of Yahoo! Inc. to not allow disgraceful “manipulations” such as these. The image HIGHLY exaggerates the described situation in the caption. The image implies a bias on the part of Adnan Hajj, the photographer, which is unethical and should not be tolerated.

->> I think it's funny how everyone jumped on this dude for his horrible job of photoshopping things that weren't there yet just last week the same thing was done in the State's and prompted very different reactions on this site. odd.

->> Mr. Liddy ;),
I guess were on this issue again, aren't we? I get where you’re coming from, but you and I know what Mr. Schneider did a couple days ago is nothing like this. Mr. Schneider was supposedly just trying to make a situation look as what most people perceive it to be. Adnan(notice I didn't say Mr.) exaggerated, or at least tried to exaggerate the situation and is biased against the Israelis (which is another issue.)

Mr Schneider's photo may or may not have been edited in P-Shop to bring out the red tones in the sky present at many fires. As the smoke rises and blocks out the sun , many fire photos end up with a reddish sky. No idea if that is the case, but I also think Schneider's award winner was P-shopped beyond any limits which should be allowed, and he should have been reprimanded and had his award stripped for that image.

In this Reuters photo from Lebanon the photo is well outside any bounds of reality. The repeating smoke pattern and cloned buildings are not "toning" of an image, it is a complete fabrications of things that were not there. When we crop things get removed, what this photog did was add new elements to the photo (and very poorly at that) and that on a scale of 1 to 10 for ethics is a #10 for WRONG. What Schneider may or may not have done with the colour of the sky is closer to a 2 and very much in a grey area.

->> drew, with all due respect you should realize in photojournalism we are bound to record what we see through the camera. not what we would like see or thought would make a better photo "if" it was different. I have to tell you that after the last nine or so days since patrick ran that photo on the wire the whole state has been abuzz. and it's mainly because many of us folks who have lived in NC have never, let me reiterate, never seen a sunrise or sunset like that. in fact I know one guy who went out last week during the exact same weather conditions and tried to duplicate the sky and he couldn't even come close. over exposed, under exposed or perfect didn't matter....we don't get a sky like that in our state. that's the only point I'm trying to make. there is no difference ethically in cloning smoke, combining two images to get the perfect moment, or adding colors that weren't there (that was according to the editors at the Observer). I mean we all unsharp mask, add contrast, saturate somewhat in our normal workflow but adding stuff that wasn't there...ahhh no. okay I'll shut-up now I have to write a column for our website. have a great rest of the weekend

->> Is there a possibility that it wasn't the photographer's fault that the image was doctored? Could it be someone else in the pipeline? Maybe Hajj handed his cards off to someone else to transmit and they were the ones responsible for doctoring the image. You could imagine a scenario where Hajj was contacted directly after the controversy began and then provided the original to Reuters with the third person out of the loop. Reuters was able to move an unedited version pretty quickly...

Not enough information at this point to completely blame the photographer I think. It might end up that way, but it's unwise to jump to conclusions until we know more.

->> Mark, I wrote two, the other to Reuters. Yes you can laugh and call it funny, but the photo was killed for some reason...right, and I don't think Reuters was reading the SportsShooter message board.

David, I think that's a very real possibility; I don't think he's THAT stupid. But for now I'm blaming Hajj. Guilty until proven innocent, right? ;)

Reuters may not be reading sportsshooter....(LMAO)... But Ynet Daily, Yediot, Jpost, The daily star (beirut), and about a thousand other media entities have come across this very MB thread TODAY ALONE!

Not to mention the article from Ynet is now linked on drudge! So I truly wonder how many people have read this thread today?!?!? (FWIW, if it weren't for the headline/ link on drudge, I never would have seen this until tuesday)

Grover, et al... a lil help please..... Traffic numbers for this thread would be really insightful right about now... I am just dying to know how big the spike in traffic is!

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under,..."

So, per Mr. Hajj this was only an attempt at some aggressive dust spot removal that went heywire. All I can say is "Wow".

->> It would be interesting to know how much sensor dust is actually present in the original image. Hard to believe it was so noticeable against the smoke that he had to clone so extensively. And you'd normally do it with a brush size that's just a bit bigger than the dust specks, you wouldn't re-paint the entire sky. It seems like a really dopey excuse, and, no matter why he did it, what's Reuters excuse for not catching it in the first place?

->> Here is the blog that apparently first broke the story. http://LittleGreenFootballs.com. I think Drudge Report has something. Apparently this same photog also has a picture of a plane shooting flares (incorrectly captioned as "missles") where he cloned in extra flares. I haven't seen that one yet. Anybody got a link?

Notes:SPECIAL 2/PACK of Lexar's Professional 400x CompactFlash 16GB Card is designed for reliable high-speed performance (minimum of 60 MB/s read rate), ideal for capture and storage of high quality images on your DSLR camera--stills and video. WHILE SUPPLIES LAST